IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective

Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> Thu, 09 June 2016 21:17 UTC

Return-Path: <lear@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42AF512D537 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Jun 2016 14:17:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.948
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.948 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GGo-Pgqkua-z for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Jun 2016 14:17:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-1.cisco.com (aer-iport-1.cisco.com [173.38.203.51]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D405212D0ED for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Jun 2016 14:17:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2503; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1465507021; x=1466716621; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:mime-version: in-reply-to; bh=6hdCD8by3Qb3JXQA0MXHoEKgIDWJX9+dzxczUv0o3Rw=; b=RTsVMVLL0YzHMkeQs3A6jWmmTa1A5BvmVNvqYm/UfjJKqtCaLR6alHVf q6QVi4vZvAib2X5gdhVvjZcICr8oh31vQtJnF5SfEhU9fbD6Dp7HjI0uq EcuVXUoy5NupUhl1GWnc5SiydMYZnQH0TCpuMZ0GpjKsQeMcrgXjNKN+k g=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 481
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0CoBAAt3FlX/xbLJq1ehD+5XoIPgXqGEwKBdRIBAQEBAQEBZSeERgEBBCNmCxgqAgJXBgEMCAEBiCutb5B7AQEBAQEBAQECAQEBAQEBARIOiB4Igk6BOYYIglkBBJhVgy2BaYkRgVOHcYVcj2UlCSaCFIFcOoo6AQEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.26,446,1459814400"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="677638603"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-2.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 09 Jun 2016 21:16:59 +0000
Received: from [10.61.210.152] ([10.61.210.152]) by aer-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u59LGwbJ022999; Thu, 9 Jun 2016 21:16:59 GMT
Subject: Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective
To: Michael StJohns <mstjohns@comcast.net>, ietf@ietf.org
References: <20160608135632.20063.81792.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <256CE0D6-1A2A-459A-9800-FAF1960EDD09@consulintel.es> <D6E8D8D5-EB54-412C-9620-A8A3B2EC674B@gmail.com> <CAC8QAcewGyG3hTy4vPzuu69mznXOC-gMrODQefUqscqfwKwKTg@mail.gmail.com> <82901186-58D0-4C71-9562-57F90DFCE0CF@gmail.com> <CAC8QAcfia-boXPGGa-8ioh-Tcg4pdEnuH2C+=e7swE2g1c2ZTg@mail.gmail.com> <cd3058b4-28f7-59d2-1596-cdf8c6ea359e@gmail.com> <9ebfd327-9faf-dc0b-914f-138a2be4908f@cisco.com> <ca583cf2-ed15-7563-7f4d-4aa813227b2e@comcast.net>
From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <d26d6464-f66c-85b5-6949-89eebc641581@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2016 23:16:57 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <ca583cf2-ed15-7563-7f4d-4aa813227b2e@comcast.net>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="4u4LnXoLatXgGQunTmcVntR1XgFq6oHI9"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/xIATpGJfr4gmdWgiMamIkTQEKK4>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2016 21:17:02 -0000


On 6/9/16 9:47 PM, Michael StJohns wrote:
> Before anyone moves too far down this path,  the following need to be
> answered as well:
>
> If we drop one meeting a year, how do we compensate for the lost
> revenue from that meeting?  Should the meeting we drop be the one that
> would tend to provide us the least revenue?

While revenue is important, I want to point out that I was talking about
an experiment, doing it once, and then figuring things out from there. 
I think Yoav's point is important too.  Maybe we're talking ONLY about
virtual interims.  That does away with host issues and travel.

Eliot

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email